poor and the afflicted. Yes, these were their compli cated crimes they were "righteous over much;" and therefore were treated with ridicule by other members of the university, against whom no such charges could be substantiated.

"In the year 1735," you say, "John and Charles Wesley had imbibed so much of enthusiastic zeal, that, quitting all prospects in their own country, they embarked for Georgia, to preach the gospel to the American Indians."* Enthusiastic zeal; that is to say, fanatical, irrational zeal. But what are the proofs that their zeal was of this description? O, there are two, and two most potent ones. The first is, their quitting all prospects in their own country"-all prospects of clerical promotion. They were men of learning and talents, especially John Wesley. He was also a man of much application and perseverance; and it is at least possible that, had he tarried at home, and kept his religion within moderate bounds, he might per chance, by the aid of a patron, have passed through the various gradations of clerical office, till, like you, Sir, he might have been designated The Rev. the Archdeacon. And if in that situation he had affected much zeal, not enthusiastic, but rational zeal, for the established church, and published charges against dissenters, it is not the most improbable conjecture that was ever offered, that in due time he might even have worn the mitre. The second proof of their zeal being enthusiastic is, their embarking "for Georgia,

Page 6.

to preach the gospel to the American Indians." What man in his right mind would ever have done this? To embark at all, how foolish! By so doing they quitted all prospects in their own country, tore themselves from their kindred and acquaintance, and exposed themselves to the danger of a watery grave! Then, to embark for such a purpose! Had it been to collect gold as the dust, and silver as the sand of the sea, their zeal would have been rational; but to go to America to preach the gospel! Who but madmen would ever have done so? And then, to preach the gospel to Indians! Surely they must have been enthusiasts indeed to trouble themselves at all about the souls of Indians!

Ah, Sir, and can you deliberately, in a precomposed address to your clergy, many of whom, instead of being in danger from too much zeal, possess a death-like apathy on divine subjects-can you deliberately mark the apostolical zeal of those men of God with the opprobrious epithet-enthusiastic? A zeal which had for its object, not personal aggrandizement, but the glory of God, and the eternal salvation of myriads of immortal beings-a zeal which, like the apostle's, exposed them to perils by land, perils by water, and perils among false brethren-and a zeal which led them without a sigh to sacrifice the friendship, honour, and pleasures of the world, and not to "count their lives dear unto themselves, so that they might finish their course with joy, and the ministry which they had received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." Would St. Paul, Sir, have consi

dered this an evil deserving of reprobation? No : he would not have reproved the zeal, but the supineness of ministers of the present age. And had any of the ministers been accused of being too zealous, instead of damping that zeal by censure, he would have increased its action by commendation; and in justification of what might appear eccentricity to frozen-hearted formalists and "gentle theologues," he would probably have said, "Whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause: for the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."* On the subject of Christian zeal, the apostle Paul and his successor, the reverend the archdeacon of Stafford, appear to be completely at issue. The one proclaims that "it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing," and furnishes an illustration of the truth of his doctrine, by "warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom ;" and especially by preaching, at the expense of ease and reputation," the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles;" whereas the other furnishes no such example; but on the contrary, designates Christian zeal enthusiastic ; and in justification of such designation, tells his clergy that the Wesleys had "quitted all prospects in their

*2 Cor. v. 13-15.

D

I would say of eulogy what a late ingenious writer has said of ornaments. "Eulogy becomes none except the handsome. To all others eulogy only attracts people's eyes to behold infirmity and ugliness."

But when you describe the church of England as the most pure and apostolical form of christianity, you perhaps refer not so much to her ministry, as to her form, or manner of worship. That there is much re-` semblance here will not readily be believed, till it be proved that formularies of devotion were used in the apostolical churches-that in those formularies baptism and regeneration were terms of the same import -that they acknowledged other priests besides Christ -that in baptism they signed with the sign of the cross-that they consecrated the bread and wine in the eucharist-that they had an altar, and knelt before it-that they repeated a creed aloud, and turned their faces towards the east-and that the minister read prayers in a surplice, and preached in a gown.

In the preceding observations I have endeavoured to avoid exaggeration, and aimed at a plain statement of truth; after the examination of which your readers may judge of the exact agreement between the worship of the church of England and that of the

LETTER II.

REVEREND SIR,

You profess to believe the church of England to be" the most perfect form of Christianity," to be "enlightened by the faith, and strengthened by the blood of martyrs," "founded upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone;"" and as to human security, supported by the laws of the land, and connected with the most vital parts of the constitution :"* yet, somewhat inconsistently, you seem, though you affect to conceal your fears, to apprehend dreadful things from a combination of Methodists against it. “Our church," you say, "circumstanced as I have described it, has once been overthrown by a sect in many respects resembling the Methodists, by the Puritans."+ The excesses of those times are certainly much to be lamented; but they were very few in comparison with those which have in general attended national revolutions.

But what were those Puritans? Persons without religious principles, or whose principles were so accommodating as always to yield to the will of their superiors? Persons over whom the pride and emolument of office had such absolute influence as utterly to silence the voice of conscience, and, if not to annihilate, at least, throw the moral sense into a profound sleep? No: they were men in general of unconquer